Embrace the Space Jelly: How to Inspire Beautiful Ships with Drag as a Feature

XenoCow

Master endo
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
572
#1
Introduction
In most of our favorite movies and TV shows, space ships are shown to have wings or otherwise aerodynamic shapes. As you all know though, this is not optimal in a vacuum where there is no drag or lift to be gained with shapes like that. In video games, it is a mixed bag. Some games like Space Engineers and Star Made have no drag in space so your ship can keep floating endlessly. In Starbase, we have drag, the so called "space jelly" that slows ships down without a constant force applied. It is often considered a limitation on the gameplay, but what if it was turned from a performance enhancing mechanism into a gameplay mechanic?


The Problem
Anywhere you go in the Starbase community, you will find the discussion about the design of ships that are viable not matching expectations, either in appearance or capability. Much of this has to do with comparing the trailer ships to the combat ships we have now. There are of course beautiful and functional ships now, but the beauty comes second to functionality. So, how can we make the functionality look beautiful and allow for many kinds of ships to all be viable?


Proposed Solution
For any solution in Starbase... or anything really when dealing with complex game theoretical systems, is to understand that you cannot easily force anybody's hand, you can only provide changes in the trade-off and incentive environment. If you want players to build ships that match the aesthetic and gameplay expectations and goals of the players, you need to provide a viable way to do that that beats the unwanted way such that a rational person would usually choose the desired option out of it being the better choice.

Focusing on small features and tweaks is important later for tuning, but they will likely not have the effect you want since they are so embedded in the larger framework. Here is how I think we can change the environment to help promote ships that gain beauty and diversity through function:

Make space jelly drag surface area dependent. We already have unrealistic drag in space and lasers that move at the speed of bullets, making the drag act like there is air everywhere would not be that much more unrealistic. We can ignore lift (unless we wanted to add that to planets), but just make it so that the vector of the ship's motion will encounter an opposing force proportional to the surface area of that side of the ship.

I expect that this would be computationally heavy to perform in real time, but I imagine it being possible to calculate at the same time as LODs are generated. The simplest model of this would require a different drag coefficient to be calculated every 90 degrees around the ship, essentially making a cubic representation of the ship. In-between angles would then be calculated by combining faces of the drag cube. If more faces of the representational shape could be added, that would be more accurate and help with ships that may have holes in them to beter represent the reduced drag for those angles.


Expected Implications
This would dramatically shift the ship making tactics around. If you wanted to fly a cube, it would require an immense amount of thrust to make up for it but the ship would be equally sluggish in all directions. If you want efficient acceleration, you could either make your ship narrower with respect to the direction you want to move quickly in (likely narrow from the front). However, this would come at the tradeoff of reduced strafing ability.

Boxy ships would not be useless with this model, but would not have the acceleration advantage that ships with dedicated directionality could. This may lead to combat looking more like dog fights, with it being difficult to slow down narrow ships without turning and chases and reversals being more common than circle duels.

One unfortuanate trade off you would see is that ships would become even denser. As drag is only calculated at the surface, ships that have empty space in them would be wasting thrust to move around those volumes. This would make the problem of hands-on-ness and repairabilty worse so that would have to be fixed by other methods.

Another possible outcome could be even more thrust walls. People may choose to ignore the drag mechanics and instead just cover their ship in thrusters rather than optimize for a particular thrust to surface area optimum. This also would have to be addressed by other changes and additions.

Overall, I would expect that ships would begin to flatten out a little more than they are now, this might also help to reduce the weapon spam since fewer weapons could be positioned along a thin ship. It may also allow small fighters to have the role of being more nimble than anything else since their small size could mean that even on their widests side they would have very little drag.


Conclusion
Starbase showed us a vision in the trailers of a game that we all want to see. How many of us were on-board just from seeing those videos as they were? But players are very good at solving problems, including the "problems" of the game looking nice and being fun. So, to bring those things back we can't punish or reward directly, but instead have to create an enviorment where the best path for any reasonable player is to make the game look nice and be fun. Drag being a feature instead of a performance maintainance mechanism might just be one such envioronmental change that can set us on that right course. What do you all think? I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
 

La_fleur_

Well-known endo
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Messages
97
#2
In general, I agree. The game can deviate from the principle of space as a vacuum and make it an environment. Also, make your own environment adjustment coefficients for each moon. Suppose the space resistance coefficient is set to 1% of the specified resistance formula, then on each of the Moons it will be 1%+ (The coefficient from the calculation formula with the mass of the Moon). Thus, the cosmos will be less resistant, and the environments of the Moon, on the contrary, will be more resistant. This is in the future when the Moon's Atmosphere may be introduced.
 

La_fleur_

Well-known endo
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Messages
97
#3
If in addition to resistance, temperature and radiation appear in the game. This will make the creation of ships even more different and rationally justified.
 

Askannon

Veteran endo
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
135
#4
If in addition to resistance, temperature and radiation appear in the game. This will make the creation of ships even more different and rationally justified.
Could be interesting if there are conflicting environmental pressures, to encourage specialist ships as opposed to generalists.
 

XenoCow

Master endo
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
572
#5
Also, make your own environment adjustment coefficients for each moon. Suppose the space resistance coefficient is set to 1% of the specified resistance formula, then on each of the Moons it will be 1%+ (The coefficient from the calculation formula with the mass of the Moon). Thus, the cosmos will be less resistant, and the environments of the Moon, on the contrary, will be more resistant. This is in the future when the Moon's Atmosphere may be introduced.
I agree. I also considered differences within and without atmospheres, but wanted to keep the main post more concise. It's not a bad compromise to allow boxy ships in space and more plane like ships in atmospheres. It could lead to ships that need to find a balance if they need to be used in both and could lead to battles near atmosphere edges being more interesting.
 

Colonkin

Well-known endo
Joined
Apr 29, 2022
Messages
64
#6
In addition to the posts, one more thought.
It is necessary to balance the thrust of the ship with the increase in its mass.
A kind of relativistic effect.
The closer the ship's speed is to maximum, the more time it takes to further increase speed.
And the more massive the ship (spam of engines and weapons), the stronger this effect. (Correlation to ship mass).
The game itself attempts to implement this as durability. But I don't see this working. The frame beams have ultimate strength. In real life, it is the resistance of materials that limits maximum accelerations. Because the strength of the structure cannot be increased indefinitely.
Cargo ships will simply take a long time to accelerate.
If you want a fast, maneuverable battle, use small and light ships. If you want a siege, build dreadnoughts with a lot of guns and armor. But they shouldn't fly like flies.
Perhaps with the introduction of automatic turrets the meta will change somewhat. Give the turrets a small firing spread. And if the cross-section of the ship is large, then it will simply be hit more.
Well, as I already wrote in another post, the lack of calculation of effective armor is precisely what contributes to the meta on the bars. There is no point in making an inclined reservation. However, I have no idea how to effectively implement this in mathematics. All the same, the calculations will be serious with a large number of shells.
 

XenoCow

Master endo
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
572
#7
The game itself attempts to implement this as durability. But I don't see this working. The frame beams have ultimate strength. In real life, it is the resistance of materials that limits maximum accelerations. Because the strength of the structure cannot be increased indefinitely.
I talk a little bit about the potential for beam durability and the inertia of a ship to play an important role on maneuverability in the addendum of this post here, it might interest you. I do note that this current thread's suggestion conflicts with the suggestion I am linking... I like to propose many kinds of ideas to see what might work.
 

pavvvel

Veteran endo
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
231
#8
In addition to the posts, one more thought.
It is necessary to balance the thrust of the ship with the increase in its mass.
A kind of relativistic effect.
The closer the ship's speed is to maximum, the more time it takes to further increase speed.
And the more massive the ship (spam of engines and weapons), the stronger this effect. (Correlation to ship mass).
The game itself attempts to implement this as durability. But I don't see this working. The frame beams have ultimate strength. In real life, it is the resistance of materials that limits maximum accelerations. Because the strength of the structure cannot be increased indefinitely.
Cargo ships will simply take a long time to accelerate.
If you want a fast, maneuverable battle, use small and light ships. If you want a siege, build dreadnoughts with a lot of guns and armor. But they shouldn't fly like flies.
Perhaps with the introduction of automatic turrets the meta will change somewhat. Give the turrets a small firing spread. And if the cross-section of the ship is large, then it will simply be hit more.
Well, as I already wrote in another post, the lack of calculation of effective armor is precisely what contributes to the meta on the bars. There is no point in making an inclined reservation. However, I have no idea how to effectively implement this in mathematics. All the same, the calculations will be serious with a large number of shells.
Good afternoon. I don't support this idea. Why should we look up to the ships from the movies, instead of striving for realism? Why use a stick instead of a carrot? The whip is a limitation that cannot even be confirmed by the physics of space.. And the carrot is the mechanics of ricochets / reflection of bullets / lasers when using inclined streamlined armor. Give the players rebound mechanics and they will stop building bricks and boxes. Adding space resistance depending on the surface area of the ship is not only illogical, but also an extra burden on the player's PC and on everyone who hosts it. In addition, there is no way to justify the deterioration of the dynamics of the ship with an increase in its size: either you have 1 engine and 1000 kg of mass, or you have 7 engines and 7000kg of mass, what's the difference? ... Initially, I agree that players have few opportunities to build beautiful ships that are "close to meta" at the same time. But you don't need to solve this with restrictions. I really want to build big ships. There is beauty in this.
I suggest thinking about gingerbread. The first is a ricochet system, the second is hollow parts (the same plates or triangles, but hollow inside and lighter, consuming fewer voxels). The third is Welding of plates (within reasonable limits) and glasses. The fourth is the tinting of the windows. The fifth is the addition of the ability to change the color of engine exhaust to the game. Let's come up with something together
 

Colonkin

Well-known endo
Joined
Apr 29, 2022
Messages
64
#9
Good afternoon. I don't support this idea. Why should we look up to the ships from the movies, instead of striving for realism? Why use a stick instead of a carrot? The whip is a limitation that cannot even be confirmed by the physics of space.. And the carrot is the mechanics of ricochets / reflection of bullets / lasers when using inclined streamlined armor. Give the players rebound mechanics and they will stop building bricks and boxes. Adding space resistance depending on the surface area of the ship is not only illogical, but also an extra burden on the player's PC and on everyone who hosts it. In addition, there is no way to justify the deterioration of the dynamics of the ship with an increase in its size: either you have 1 engine and 1000 kg of mass, or you have 7 engines and 7000kg of mass, what's the difference? ... Initially, I agree that players have few opportunities to build beautiful ships that are "close to meta" at the same time. But you don't need to solve this with restrictions. I really want to build big ships. There is beauty in this.
I suggest thinking about gingerbread. The first is a ricochet system, the second is hollow parts (the same plates or triangles, but hollow inside and lighter, consuming fewer voxels). The third is Welding of plates (within reasonable limits) and glasses. The fourth is the tinting of the windows. The fifth is the addition of the ability to change the color of engine exhaust to the game. Let's come up with something together
We were not talking about beautiful ships.
More precisely, not only about this. In my opinion, the beauty of ships lies in their functionality and precision.

Specifically, in my post I drew attention to the fact that the game in every possible way ignores the strength of materials. Almost everything. The biggest example and greatest obstacle to gigantism is the resistance of materials. Those. the ability of certain materials to resist load without destruction.
And most equipment cannot overcome certain design schemes precisely because the limit has been reached.

In relation to spaceships, it looks something like this.

We increase the thrust - There is not enough fuel and charge - We add tanks and batteries - The beams cannot withstand - we strengthen the structure - the mass increases - we need to increase the thrust.
And then in a vicious circle.

A striking example of the current state of affairs is that Humanity has the resources and technology to build a space elevator. We know at what altitude and speed a satellite must be launched in order to hover over one point on the planet. But there is one obstacle. There is no material capable of supporting the own weight of a cable lowered from space.

Now in relation to game mechanics.
Initially, there seems to be a mechanics of strength. But I have never seen ships broken in half due to insufficient strength and high acceleration. Most likely this was turned off due to the high cost of computing resources. During construction, they may suggest something to you and quarrel, but in fact without any special consequences.
Therefore, we have combat cubes where it is possible to increase engine thrust virtually without consequences for the design. Without fear that during a jerk, our structure will fly further in 2 or more different parts due to the fact that it cannot withstand the force set. But there is also the concept of dynamic loads.

I won't even write about it.
All these calculations are the domain of special engineering programs. But I would like it to be similar to the truth, but at the same time cheap in terms of computing resources. From this, gaming conventions are born. Liquid space and more.
The accuracy of the simulation will not be very high, but we don’t need to launch a satellite.

Now, in addition to the strength gain, let's remember the combat component. Most of the weapons in the game are represented by kinetic charges (even the laser has a mass of charge for some reason). OK. Let's remove lasers and plasma. The rest is almost all kinetics.
It's no secret how kinetics counters armor. The most effective way is to make inclined surfaces of the faces facing the source of the projectiles. We see the opposite.
This is also not in the game. Maybe we didn’t have time, maybe the math is too expensive.

As a result, we are seeing meta ships that contradict mechanics, physics, structural sciences, ballistics and logic.

What could be beautiful about this?
Let's add unicorns to space. It will be about the same. From a science fiction game we get the fantasy ravings of a madman.

Regarding large ships.
I also want to use and build them. Nobody forbids this.
But for now there are a number of restrictions. In the same SSC by the number of voxels, bolts, etc. The same goes for the size of a normally operating hangar at stations and capital ships.

I would like to see that small ships have high speed and acceleration but a short range.
And huge monstrous ships are not agile.
But they are difficult to kill and if they accelerate, it is impossible to catch up (flight autonomy is not enough).

This is balance in the game.

There is no ultimate solution.
There is a set of special tools.
And then the best (good) ship in its class appears.
And it is already beautiful in its effectiveness.

Now we are seeing the opposite situation. There is an ultimate solution for all occasions. And people oppose meta cubes not because they don’t like them (in the current gaming realities, this is the most correct and effective form).
But because even without primary analysis it is clear that these ships simply contradict common sense. As for visually beautiful ships, I see them simply as an advertising bonus. Formally, in a vacuum, the resistance of the medium can be neglected and there is no need for streamlined forms. Yes, of course, there is also hydrogen degradation of metals. But in the short term it can also be neglected.
 

Colonkin

Well-known endo
Joined
Apr 29, 2022
Messages
64
#10
In addition, there is no way to justify the deterioration of the dynamics of the ship with an increase in its size: either you have 1 engine and 1000 kg of mass, or you have 7 engines and 7000kg of mass, what's the difference? ...
This is your main misconception. There is also a huge difference. And the main limitation is the structural strength of materials and sections.

You cannot increase the mass of a product indefinitely. After a certain threshold, your material will no longer withstand itself. A striking example. What is the difference between a 1 km hill and 8+ km Mount Everest. And why are there no mountains higher than 8 km? It's simple. They could grow even bigger. But the strength of the bark underneath them is lower than their weight. It's about the same with us. You can increase the design and number of engines up to a certain limit. Then it will become ineffective.

Why?

Because if you use all your engines at full strength, they will not withstand the design of the power set. They will simply be torn apart. Acceleration is a very tricky thing for any design. I personally observed how a metal part that could withstand several tons of static load broke due to small values of dynamic load. And it is dynamic loads that give acceleration from engines.

Therefore, in order not to bother your head with heavy mathematics, it is easier to bring the parameters into line with a certain degree of correlation. Naturally, the numbers must be justified. But this can be calculated once, for example in SSC, and then use ready-made parameters.
 

J.D.

Veteran endo
Joined
Aug 16, 2021
Messages
219
#11
This is a great topic, one I’m real passionate about as well. The trailers we saw are awesome with the dev designed ships, and it’s really too bad that the meta has been tasteless. I’m not real sure if space jelly alone will completely fix the issue, because I would fear that a different meta would come about, like diamonds, or circles. But I’ll admit, even that would be better than the cubes because it’s so cliche in games like this. lol

Tanks in real life have sloped armor, as we all know, to have a chance at deflecting the rounds shot at them, or at least sort of push away the most brutal part of the force enough to survive. Of course, I’m sure they probably couldn’t do a lot of physics in the game, I’m guessing that would be huge, but I don’t know by experience or anything. But this space jelly thing does sound like a good idea, in my opinion. I wish armor pieces didn’t have hp bars attached to them, and hold up integrity unless a couple holes are put right next to each other, where the armor was already worn from the last shot, then that would pierce through. Etc…

But I too hope they create ways that nice ships can be competitive.
 

pavvvel

Veteran endo
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
231
#12
The comparison with Mount Everest is absolutely incorrect. A mountain is a heterogeneous environment, which is affected by various forces, including gravity, which does not exist in space. THERE is absolutely no difference between a ship with 1 engine and 1000 kg of mass and a ship with 7 engines and 7000 kg of mass. You have to understand that in order for this game to be beautiful, big ships are vital. But few people build them because it's damn hard!!! You can edit a large ship for 3 months, and then the game update comes out and the ship goes to scrap. Another reason why they are not being built is that it is much easier to fire a weapon at them. It's a tasty fat target. There are a bunch of different factors why a large ship is very difficult to build and fly. And instead of figuring out how to cut and limit large ships, it is necessary, on the contrary, to make sure that they have an advantage. For example, given that the weapon is kinetic, you can make, to begin with, a simple system of buffs: a ship heavier than 3k tons gets buff +5% to the health of all parts. Above 4k tons +7%, above 5k tons - +10% to the health of the parts and so on.
Or do you want all the players to fly on small bicycles and on a grandmother's stroller? Let's make this game beautiful and instead of extremely strange ideas about how to make life difficult for large ships, on the contrary, we'll figure out how to improve it! Try to spend a few months of real life to build a good large ship. Not a miner, but a warship. Experience this pain. And then read on the forum that someone wants to make your ship weaker, and without a single adequate argument.
The developers plan to add automatic turrets to the game (if I'm not mistaken). Large ships will become their main carrier. And it will be beautiful.
 

Colonkin

Well-known endo
Joined
Apr 29, 2022
Messages
64
#13
The comparison with Mount Everest is absolutely incorrect. A mountain is a heterogeneous environment, which is affected by various forces, including gravity, which does not exist in space. THERE is absolutely no difference between a ship with 1 engine and 1000 kg of mass and a ship with 7 engines and 7000 kg of mass. You have to understand that in order for this game to be beautiful, big ships are vital. But few people build them because it's damn hard!!! You can edit a large ship for 3 months, and then the game update comes out and the ship goes to scrap. Another reason why they are not being built is that it is much easier to fire a weapon at them. It's a tasty fat target. There are a bunch of different factors why a large ship is very difficult to build and fly. And instead of figuring out how to cut and limit large ships, it is necessary, on the contrary, to make sure that they have an advantage. For example, given that the weapon is kinetic, you can make, to begin with, a simple system of buffs: a ship heavier than 3k tons gets buff +5% to the health of all parts. Above 4k tons +7%, above 5k tons - +10% to the health of the parts and so on.
Or do you want all the players to fly on small bicycles and on a grandmother's stroller? Let's make this game beautiful and instead of extremely strange ideas about how to make life difficult for large ships, on the contrary, we'll figure out how to improve it! Try to spend a few months of real life to build a good large ship. Not a miner, but a warship. Experience this pain. And then read on the forum that someone wants to make your ship weaker, and without a single adequate argument.
The developers plan to add automatic turrets to the game (if I'm not mistaken). Large ships will become their main carrier. And it will be beautiful.
Pavel, you are already arguing for the sake of arguing. )))
I have no criticism of big ships.
On the contrary, it is a large ship that is easier to make not only functional and beautiful. Some people like streamlined shapes, while others are a fan of cubism. I'm not against either one.

On the contrary, I am for specialization and ships of different sizes. I am for Battleships, destroyers and aircraft carriers. Missile boats and torpedo bombers.
If a destroyer without torpedoes tries to attack a battleship, it will be torn apart with the first shot. If it hits.

Your idea has its place, but it seems to me that it’s easier to get by with sizes rather than bonuses. For example, you decided to build a large ship (not a capital ship) and you need more firepower against large but slow-moving targets. Let us call it a battleship by analogy with the navy. This means we don’t need 25 conventional guns.
A Guns of XXL size with the corresponding parameters of damage, range and rate of fire. To service the guns, you need large generators and batteries, not 5 hundred of the smallest, but 20 of the largest.
Accordingly, all this must be moved by engines that are also much larger.
Yes, this will require certain adjustments to the game design. But no one said that now is ideal.
And yes. Individuals will obviously not be able to build and maintain such ships. We need crew and security and a lot of resources and infrastructure.

Regarding your statement about gravity, I will tell you that you fundamentally do not understand how mechanics work. Any design experiences a lot of forces. And even if your structure at rest is in equilibrium in space, then you are right.
There is absolutely no difference how many engines and how many tons.
Because everything is at rest. But as soon as the movement begins, miracles begin.
Turning on the engines will create acceleration and stress will occur in the structure. The material of the construction set will resist these forces. Exactly until the yield point of the material is overcome. After which there is a sharp decrease in the cross-section of the beam and destruction. Why is this so? Because you can't place all the engines at one force application point.
This means they will be somehow spaced away from the core of the section. And the lever will become weak in the application of force from the engine thrust and there will be stresses in the material. Yes, it seems like we don’t have any huge accelerations like 20-30G here. But the mass of structures is also not small. If we convert from voxels to kg. And even to provide engines with an acceleration of 0.1 G at the place where the force from the engine is applied, there will be such loads that not every material can withstand.
At the same time, in a large ship it is easier to make an effective structure, because it is possible to place different braces, slopes, and additional beams that could increase the structural strength.

P.S. What I wrote here is not a post against large ships.
VICE VERSA! I AM FOR LARGE SHIPS.
FOR beautiful large functional ships!
Which can only be built when the final game design of the game is finally finalized.
Otherwise, as you wrote. We built the ship for 3 months, and then everything changed. I have a friend. In 21 he tried to build something like Nidhogur from EVE. I haven't heard so much obscene language for a long time.

That's why I understand you))).
 

pavvvel

Veteran endo
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
231
#14
I use an online translator from English to Russian to read your messages. Then I use it again to write. Perhaps this prevents us from understanding each other better :)

I don't know what kind of problematic beam section and fluidity you're talking about. I know that 1 engine per 1000kg of nominal weight has N beams. 7 engines and 7000 masses have N*7 beams. There's no problem with that. I suggest we don't discuss this again.

About weapons - yes, it would be great to have several variants of the same weapon (size gradation). There is no joy in collecting 30 laser guns, covering them with armor, fixing and powering each one. I'd rather install 10 larger laser cannons. Or three super-huge ones.. It would be epic and beautiful. This is again a voice saying that changes are needed in the game that would improve and facilitate the construction of large ships.

I would also like to have more engine variations.
 

Colonkin

Well-known endo
Joined
Apr 29, 2022
Messages
64
#15
I use an online translator from English to Russian to read your messages. Then I use it again to write. Perhaps this prevents us from understanding each other better :)

I don't know what kind of problematic beam section and fluidity you're talking about. I know that 1 engine per 1000kg of nominal weight has N beams. 7 engines and 7000 masses have N*7 beams. There's no problem with that. I suggest we don't discuss this again.

About weapons - yes, it would be great to have several variants of the same weapon (size gradation). There is no joy in collecting 30 laser guns, covering them with armor, fixing and powering each one. I'd rather install 10 larger laser cannons. Or three super-huge ones.. It would be epic and beautiful. This is again a voice saying that changes are needed in the game that would improve and facilitate the construction of large ships.

I would also like to have more engine variations.
In simplified form, 1-1 and 7-7 may seem like a working pattern, but in reality it doesn't work that way. Otherwise, there would be no obstacles to making spacecraft 10 times larger to put the ISS into orbit at one time)). There, the question is actually not so much about the thrust-to-weight ratio, but rather about the design layout of the engines and power set.

Regarding the guns, I also had an idea to make them like RPGs or the same elite. Since we have a modular structure, it would be cool to improve products with some chance of randomness.

On the one hand, it would be possible to get unique things (which cannot be crafted so easily). Something like:
1. The weapon is a manufactured ordinary one.
2. Weapon + (for example, one parameter would be improved in the range of 5-10%)
2. Weapon ++ (2 parameters are improved in the range of 4-8%)
3. Weapon +++ (Improves 3 parameters in the range of 3-6%).
Naturally, the chance to improve to +++ is very small and costs many resources. But if successfully improved, the item would be unique. But at the same time it is not very unbalanced.

On the other hand, the issue of overproduction of heaps of ores would be resolved.
If you found/defeated (trophied) a ship with such modules, then this would greatly increase the level of happiness)))

An additional industry could develop around the improvement.
UPD.
The weapon consists of several parts in its finished state. The gun itself (damage/heat/reload/range), the gun base where the capacitors are inserted (capacity, reload speed, heat), the turret (travel speed, etc.). Collectively, by improving the parameters of each component element, you can get some pretty funny combinations. Naturally, such expenses are possible only for unique and single ships. For space meat, ordinary unimproved modules are suitable.

P.S. I’ll forgive you to consider everything written above as a product of my inflamed brain. Dreams in one word.
 
Last edited:

pavvvel

Veteran endo
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
231
#16
I meant that when building large ships, it would be convenient to make not 30 conventional guns (4 units of limit per 1 barrel), but for example 10 large guns (12 units of limit per 1 barrel). This would add variability, and at some points would facilitate the design of the ship. A shot from such a weapon would be 4 times more powerful, or 4 times more rapid-fire. Imagine a huge railgun that is two to three times larger than a default railgun...

Engines. In order to avoid 31,000 bolts and 15,000 objects in a large ship, the engines could also be scaled. This will reduce lags and simplify assembly.

I am writing all this so that you don't think about how to worsen an already difficult situation of players who build large ships (worsen it with the help of a strange bad idea about dimishing the dynamics of a ship with increasing weight, even if the mass/thrust ratio is the same as that of a small ship). And in order to do the opposite, find ways to improve the situation so that we see in the game as few mini-bricks as possible, but as many huge cruisers with big guns and huge engines as possible. Something really beautiful.
 

Colonkin

Well-known endo
Joined
Apr 29, 2022
Messages
64
#17
I meant that when building large ships, it would be convenient to make not 30 conventional guns (4 units of limit per 1 barrel), but for example 10 large guns (12 units of limit per 1 barrel). This would add variability, and at some points would facilitate the design of the ship. A shot from such a weapon would be 4 times more powerful, or 4 times more rapid-fire. Imagine a huge railgun that is two to three times larger than a default railgun...

Engines. In order to avoid 31,000 bolts and 15,000 objects in a large ship, the engines could also be scaled. This will reduce lags and simplify assembly.

I am writing all this so that you don't think about how to worsen an already difficult situation of players who build large ships (worsen it with the help of a strange bad idea about dimishing the dynamics of a ship with increasing weight, even if the mass/thrust ratio is the same as that of a small ship). And in order to do the opposite, find ways to improve the situation so that we see in the game as few mini-bricks as possible, but as many huge cruisers with big guns and huge engines as possible. Something really beautiful.
I understand perfectly what you mean.
It is a very sound idea to have big guns, to have big engines, big batteries, big generators and big containers.
To avoid spamming hundreds of small details to get the desired result.
By the way, it is quite logical that large modules will be more efficient than small ones in terms of kv / parameter ratio.
For example, batteries will store more energy, engines will produce more thrust, generators will generate more energy.
Regarding fuel rods, you can proceed simply. The large fuel chamber will accommodate 4 rods. For unification, for example.
Although for large ships I would prefer the idea of refueling like on capitals.
 
Top